Delhi HC: Woman's Right to a Shared Household Does Not Allow Indefinite Occupation of In-Laws' Home  ||  Delhi HC: Director Disputes in a Company Do Not Qualify as Genuine Hardship to Delay ITR Filing  ||  Delhi HC: ECI Cannot Resolve Internal Disputes of Unrecognised Parties; Civil Court Must Decide  ||  Bombay High Court: Senior Citizens Act Cannot be Misused to Summarily Evict a Son  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Service Tax Refund Can't Be Denied on Limitation When Payment Was Made During Probe  ||  Supreme Court: If Tribunal Ends Case For Unpaid Fees, Parties Must Seek Recall Before Using S.14(2)  ||  SC: Article 226 Writs Jurisdiction Cannot be Used to Challenge Economic or Fiscal Reforms  ||  Supreme Court: Hostile Witness Testimony Can't Be Discarded; Consistent Parts Remain Valid  ||  Supreme Court: GPF Nomination in Favour of a Parent Becomes Invalid Once the Employee Marries  ||  Supreme Court: Candidate Not Disqualified if Core Subject Studied Without Exact Degree Title    

Maha Laxmi Hosiery vs. Govind Singh and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (06 Jun 2022)

In proceedings before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Act are not applicable

MANU/DE/2111/2022

Labour and Industrial

The Appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 seeking setting aside of the order/judgment passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee Compensation. The learned Commissioner, while passing the impugned order allowed the claim petition of the workman and awarded him compensation of Rs.2,87,136 alongwith interest @ 12% from 24.04.2008 till deposit.

In view of the fact that the statement of the workman is supported by co-workman-Rakesh Sharma, as well as reports of the (i) Labour Inspector, (ii) Inspector of Factories and (iii) Deputy Director, ESIC, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Commissioner rightly reached at the conclusion that respondent No.1/workman was working with the firm(s)/management in question at the time of accident and that the accident occurred during the course of his employment on 24.03.2008.

Although the appellant has raised a contention that the reports were not proved by the concerned scribe, this Court deems it apposite to refer in this regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Batish v. Ranjit alias Ranbir Kaur and Others, wherein it was held that in proceedings before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Act are not applicable. The Commissioner can lay down his own procedures and for the purpose of arriving at the truth, rely upon such documents which are produced before it. Respondent No.1/workman was able to establish his case before the learned Commissioner. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : COMPENSATION   GRANT   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved